How real is love? Should we seek it?
>>835584
If you want.
>>835584
I want to fuck a trebuchet
Love is a chemical reaction. Nothing more, nothing less.
Love is basically just the release of oxytocin in response to certain stimuli from the opposite sex
It's all up to you if you want to seek it.
>>835673
>pointing out scientific fact is retarded
t. Liberal arts major
Science is truth
>ITT false flags
>How real is love? Should we seek it?
Seems to be associated with particular chemical reactions (obviously in context with a whole range other factors) but it's not something that seems to be able to be properly defined.
and yes.
Love stinks anyway
>>835657
>>835651
I never quite understood this, as a response. We know that love is chemical, but how is that in any way relevant to OPs question? Is something less real because it's chemical and not some magical fairy-dust bullshit?
Pain is just chemical, too, but does that mean getting your arm chopped off doesn't hurt, or any less?
>>835673
>Implying love is a feeling instead of an ongoing action
Fucking plebeian.
>>835682
>"scientific fact" aka objectivist retard
>implying your posts even contribute anything
Yeah, it's a bunch of chemicals. So what? Does that mean it isn't real, or is at any rate less valuable? All of life is fucking chemicals. And something still has to trigger it for you, so there is a psychological as well as spiritual premise to it.
And for the record, feeling a boner is not like feeling love.
I'll just leave this here...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wuDi0i7_ug
>>835584
How does someone pronounce "Kebert Xela"?
>>835708
Mostly insecure men
>Dude it's just a chemical i'm so cold and logical dude.
>>835710
>implying feeling isn't an ongoing action
>>835614
>>835584
>>835584
Does a female love a man as a man loves a female? No; the female does not love the man; at best, the woman loves to be loved as well as adores to love to be loved. Most of the men love a woman such as most of the females loving their children, up to, for too many men, talking to the female in puerile manner in public; whereby most of the men completely failing to understand that a man must take a female with detachment, such as an owner loving his dog, such as the scientist towards his experimental subject. The lovers plays along, play her game precisely for he is not egotistic, but only narcissistic.
Her lack of reflexivity renders her the most untameable creature that so many men attempt, drawn by her, to domesticate only to perish faster than a moth on a night lamp, due to their innate failure to seek a reality outwards themselves, something that the inwards attention of the female prevents her to endure. Her nudity is the force of the woman : she makes her lack of apparent shield the most powerful one, so that the woman never lies to who takes the moment to observe her, yet without hesitating to crush every man whom she judges cruelly unworthy of her. So much power appears as beauty itself but, naturally, once that the higher man reaches her, he understands at the same instant her vacuity, or rather, the debilitation of his original quest.
>>836559
don't agree with that entirely, but where dat from?
>>835706
With pheromones
>>837075
I'm not that anon but it could be Hegel
>>837075
http://pastebin.com/Qi7nsaZq
I don't know who wrote this essay but it seems very Nietzschean, like someone rehashing what is already said better elsewhere.
>131. The sexes deceive themselves about each other: the reason is that in reality they honour and love only themselves (or their own ideal, to express it more agreeably). Thus man wishes woman to be peaceable: but in fact woman is ESSENTIALLY unpeaceable, like the cat, however well she may have assumed the peaceable demeanour.
-Nietzsche BGaE
>>835769
>not being a based MGTOW positivist living without stupid women
>not embracing objectivist science you learned from some youtube channel and using it to justify your loneliness
